Lane v. S Bank

Filing 24

ORDER denying 5 Motion to Remand; dismissing as moot 8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; dismissing as moot 21 Motion for Hearing; dismissing as moot 23 Motion for Leave of Absence. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 7/1/15. (wwp)

Fir U.S. CST;GJ COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

JUL1

JULIAN C. LANE, JR.,

CL
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. CV414-092

V.

S BANK,
Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 5),
to which Defendant has filed a response (Doc. 12) . On April 17,
2014, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in the State Court
of Liberty County, Georgia. (Doc. 1 at 11.) On May 8, 2014,
Defendant removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, maintaining that Plaintiff's claims are preempted by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ('ERISA"). (Id. at 1-2.)
Plaintiff argues in his Motion to Remand that his claims are
grounded in state law and, as a result, this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 5.)
In general terms, federal courts are courts of lmited
jurisdiction: they may only hear cases that they have been
authorized to hear by the Constitution or Congress. .See Kockonen
V.

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.., 511 U.S. 375 (1994). For cases

first filed in state court, a defendant may remove the matter to

2615

federal court only if the original case could have been brought
in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). conversely, if no basis
for subject matter jurisdiction exists, a party may move to
remand the case back to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
However, this case presents the Court with a unique problem:
currently the Court is unable to identify what claims are
actually in dispute.
The confusion over whether the Court has jurisdiction is
the result of Plaintiff's wholly undeveloped pleading. Plaintiff
insists in his Motion to Remand that he has "alleged solely
state law claims of fraud in his Complaint and did not allege
any claims under, nor even reference, ERISA." (Doc. 5 at 4.)
However, the Court finds Plaintiff's contention only partially
accurate. While Plaintiff never mentions ERISA in his complaint,
he also never once used the word fraud. In fact, Plaintiff's
complaint fails to identify the precise nature of any 5:ingle
claim or cause of action at all. Instead, Plaintiff rierely
recites a series of alleged facts followed by a demand for
damages and attorney's fees.
The problems posed by such pleading are obvious. Indeed,
Defendant admits that its removal of this action is soraewhat
speculative since "Plaintiff has failed to clearly delineate his
claims in the Complaint." (Doc. 1 at 2.) At its core, however,
Defendant's Notice of Removal relies on an assumption that the
2

case invokes federal jurisdiction because Plaintiff appears to
seek money once held in an ERISA plan. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Given the
incomplete nature of Plaintiff's complaint, however, the Court
is unable analyze whether Plaintiff's claims fall withi:i the
scope of ERISA preemption.
While both parties have offered further arguments as to why
this Court may or may not have jurisdiction, the Court finds
these arguments premature. Without determining what claims, if
any, actually exist in this case, the Court is unabe to
determine whether it has jurisdiction over them. Accord:.ngly,
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is
hereby

ORDERED

DENIED.

However, Plaintiff is

to file an amended complaint addressing the

issues identified in this order.' Failure to file an appropriate
complaint identifying the claims at issue will result in the
dismissal of this action in its entirety.
/ fr
SO ORDERED this /- day of July 2015.

WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

1

Because Plaintiff must file an amended complaint, all other
pending motions in this case are DISMISSED AS MOOT. The parties
may reassert their motions at the appropriate time if neces;ary.
3